E-330 horizontal banding and lackadaisical Oly support

[microcosm]

Looks like the L1 is getting more and more attractive by the day... too bad I am on a "no buy" period.

 

[Blu-By-U]

Cjtune..have a look at my test...Banding through all lenses and pretty bad too. ...:cry:...I am also on the "no buy" period at the moment.

 

[cjtune]

Cjtune..have a look at my test...Banding through all lenses and pretty bad too. ...:cry:...I am also on the "no buy" period at the moment.

Yeah.. I've seen through a few and they are at the same level as the 'mild' banding that I've been talking about.
None as bad as the first banded noise example you posted up... with diagonal bands.

 

[Blu-By-U]

But same shooting conditions and same area of the ceiling. maybe the EV not the same. Can't remember my last setting. That's why i mention I can live with the banding on mine. I hardly set to ISO1600 anyway and -EV...most likely after my last shooting experience in Jiuzhaigou, I would just shoot in 0 EV and JPEG. Too much hassle to adjust every shot.

 

[tomcat]

But same shooting conditions and same area of the ceiling. maybe the EV not the same. Can't remember my last setting. That's why i mention I can live with the banding on mine. I hardly set to ISO1600 anyway and -EV...most likely after my last shooting experience in Jiuzhaigou, I would just shoot in 0 EV and JPEG. Too much hassle to adjust every shot.

Shouldn't you continue to shoot in RAW and not jpeg so that any adjustment in exposure level does not affect the quality of the converted images?

 

[cjtune]

Shouldn't you continue to shoot in RAW and not jpeg so that any adjustment in exposure level does not affect the quality of the converted images?

I think I can do the same with 0% compression levels when resaving as JPEG.

Most of us can hardly afford to shoot in RAW...

 

[tomcat]

I think I can do the same with 0% compression levels when resaving as JPEG.

Most of us can hardly afford to shoot in RAW...

The point is that jpeg is a 'lossy' image compression mechanism. If you need to post-process the original jpeg file, the moment you save it, no matter what compression level you set, the image quality is affected, even if the human eyes cannot detect it... and this is cummulative in that every time you open, work on and save a jpeg file, some of the info is lost.

There is an informative write-up on jpeg here:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/

Recommendation from this guide:
The bottom line is that JPEG is a useful format for compact storage and
transmission of images, but you don't want to use it as an intermediate
format for sequences of image manipulation steps. Use a lossless 24-bit
format (PNG, TIFF, PPM, etc) while working on the image, then JPEG it when
you are ready to file it away or send it out on the net. If you expect to
edit your image again in the future, keep a lossless master copy to work
from. The JPEG you put up on your Web site should be a derived copy, not
your editing master.

That why I always shoot in RAW and keep the original RAW files even after converting and post-processing the images I wanted. A few years down the road, it has been my experience that I can still 'redevelop' them as my skills improves or when better RAW converters are available, to get even better results out of them.

 

[microcosm]

The point is that jpeg is a 'lossy' image compression mechanism. If you need to post-process the original jpeg file, the moment you save it, no matter what compression level you set, the image quality is affected, even if the human eyes cannot detect it... and this is cummulative in that every time you open, work on and save a jpeg file, some of the info is lost.

There is an informative write-up on jpeg here:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/

Recommendation from this guide:
The bottom line is that JPEG is a useful format for compact storage and
transmission of images, but you don't want to use it as an intermediate
format for sequences of image manipulation steps. Use a lossless 24-bit
format (PNG, TIFF, PPM, etc) while working on the image, then JPEG it when
you are ready to file it away or send it out on the net. If you expect to
edit your image again in the future, keep a lossless master copy to work
from. The JPEG you put up on your Web site should be a derived copy, not
your editing master.

That why I always shoot in RAW and keep the original RAW files even after converting and post-processing the images I wanted. A few years down the road, it has been my experience that I can still 'redevelop' them as my skills improves or when better RAW converters are available, to get even better results out of them.

Exactly right. Storage device prices are dropping constantly, and this is something we should not save on... having RAW files to re-edit in future will be rewarding.

 

[speedblade]

RAW and JPEG has their own advantages. To say that you MUST always shoot with one is, well, not true.

The fact is cjtune has a problem with 1600 JPEG. Sure he can use RAW as a work around. A lemon, no matter how i look at it, is still a lemon.

 

[tomcat]

RAW and JPEG has their own advantages. To say that you MUST always shoot with one is, well, not true.

The fact is cjtune has a problem with 1600 JPEG. Sure he can use RAW as a work around. A lemon, no matter how i look at it, is still a lemon.

Surely nobody is saying 'MUST' here. I am only explaining my workflow. If it is not applicable to others, they do not have to follow, right?
And if cjtune's banding problem at ISO 1600 is due to a faulty sensor or any other hardware component, I'm afraid that in that case, shooting in RAW is not going to be a workaround. :dunno:

 

[microcosm]

Hey guys, chill...

I am sure this is a case of articulating one's thoughts. I understand that tomcat's saying about using RAW and also this thread is about the lemon E-330 which I think we are all watching and see how Olympus handles this.

Thanks for pointing things out though, guys. Appreciate that. Cheers.

 

[tomcat]

This is a shot taken by the E-330 at -1 EV ISO 1600.

Again, no apparent banding observed.

On a side-note, if the WB of this shot is compared with that taken by the L1 both under the same lighting (PL fluorescent) environment, it could be seen that the AWB of the L1 is much more accurate than that of the E-330.

 

[cjtune]

The point is that jpeg is a 'lossy' image compression mechanism. If you need to post-process the original jpeg file, the moment you save it, no matter what compression level you set, the image quality is affected, even if the human eyes cannot detect it... and this is cummulative in that every time you open, work on and save a jpeg file, some of the info is lost.

I work on the basis and hope of the bolded statement.

There will be losses, from conversion from RAW to JPEG within the camera itself, I agree, but as long as there is no subsequent losses from saving further JPEGs, I am fine with it.
By saving intermediate work on a photo manipulation program's native format, there is no cumulative data loss, and I get to undo modifications as well.

Losses from amateurish skills and kit lenses and having to use high ISOs are probably several orders of magnitude higher than compression losses at SHQ (which I almost always use) JPEG. When I feel it's time to reap the remaining 0.1% of image quality remaining, then I will shoot exclusively in RAW. Meanwhile I shall continue to wallow in JPEG.

 

[tomcat]

I work on the basis and hope of the bolded statement.

There will be losses, from conversion from RAW to JPEG within the camera itself, I agree, but as long as there is no subsequent losses from saving further JPEGs, I am fine with it.
By saving intermediate work on a photo manipulation program's native format, there is no cumulative data loss, and I get to undo modifications as well.

Losses from amateurish skills and kit lenses and having to use high ISOs are probably several orders of magnitude higher than compression losses at SHQ (which I almost always use) JPEG.

Because there is no such thing as 0% compression in jpeg.
Do read the FAQ I attached, particularly Section 5 on quality settings for jpeg and you should understand.
Also, just because you can't see the loss, does not mean there is no loss and these losses are cummulative as you edit and save, edit and save, edit and save.... and the cummulative effects of the losses would be apparent when you compare an copy of the original jpeg file with the one that you have edited and saved, say 10 times.

 

[cjtune]

Because there is no such thing as 0% compression in jpeg.
Do read the FAQ I attached, particularly Section 5 on quality settings for jpeg and you should understand.
Also, just because you can't see the loss, does not mean there is no loss and these losses are cummulative as you edit and save, edit and save, edit and save.... and the cummulative effects of the losses would be apparent when you compare an copy of the original jpeg file with the one that you have edited and saved, say 10 times.

Yes I agree with you. But what is the magnitude of the least loss? 1% 0.1% 0.001%?
BTW, there are also lossless JPEG algorithms but not many software support those. I'm not sure if my Paint Shop Pro is one of these but it does support the purely lossless (if 0% compression) JPEG2000 format.

If you save and resave within Photoshop's native work file format, will there be losses?
Its work file format is lossless. Same as with my PSP. I work within its file format, not JPEG atop JPEGs.

Anyhow, to you your RAW, to me my JPEGs. I don't want this thread to turn into some religious argument about storage formats.

 

[cjtune]

Some shots with my lens cap on and viewfinder shutter closed. Noise-Reduction turned on.
Images' are colour inverted and histograms of brightnesses stretched by discarding 0.01% of darkest pixels, and 0.01% of brightest pixels.

ISO 100, 2sec exposure:

ISO 400, 2sec exposure:

ISO 1600, 2sec exposure:

 

[cjtune]

ISO 100, 6sec exposure:

ISO 400, 6sec exposure:

ISO 1600, 6sec exposure:

Original files (JPEG SHQ; 17MB total) here:
http://www.filesend.net/download.php?f=3940334a4a89ea1fe1982f1bd9368b2f

Note that NR only gets activated if exposure time is 4sec or longer.

 

[cjtune]

Here's someone who replied to my thread on the DPReview forum:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=20926765

Seems like if the E-330 was OK to begin with, then the banded noise may not be so bad, which more or less corresponds with my observation of the loaned E-330 unit vs that my own.

 

[Blu-By-U]

Cjtune, think you better ask for a replacement. Keep bugging them till something is done. Thank you Tomcat for you feedback.

There is banding at the bottom of the cat's chin. the background have horizontal banding. Not as severe as mine and cjtune's.

 

[tomcat]

Cjtune, think you better ask for a replacement. Keep bugging them till something is done. Thank you Tomcat for you feedback.

There is banding at the bottom of the cat's chin. the background have horizontal banding. Not as severe as mine and cjtune's.

I think you would have to be extremely critical and nitpicky to consider those as banding. I would consider them to be jpeg and noise artifacts only especially since they were in very small patches and not stretching across the image like those of yours. :dunno: